Literature DB >> 16988778

Abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy: patient perceptions, anatomical outcomes, and graft erosions.

Kenneth C H Su1, Martina F Mutone, Colin L Terry, Douglass S Hale.   

Abstract

This is a retrospective analysis of 169 consecutive patients who underwent the abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy. POP-Q measurements, patient willingness to have the same surgery again, and mesh erosions were recorded during follow-up visits. Patients whose erosion responded to office excision were defined as having minor mesh erosion. Patients with persistent erosions requiring outpatient surgical excisions were defined as having major mesh erosion. For the 122 patients with 12-month follow-up, all POP-Q points improved (p<0.005) compared with preoperative measurements. The response to the question "Would you go through the same surgery again?" was "yes" 77.3% of the time and "no" 4.9% of the time. Minor mesh erosion rate was 5.9% (10/169). Major erosion rate was 0.6% (1/169). In conclusion, when combined with paravaginal defect repair and Burch urethropexy, the abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy effectively addresses all support defects in patients with advanced prolapse. The procedure is associated with a high level of patient willingness to have the same surgery again, and it is achieved with low erosion rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16988778     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-006-0196-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  11 in total

1.  Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy.

Authors:  A G Visco; A C Weidner; M D Barber; E R Myers; G W Cundiff; R C Bump; W A Addison
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Abdominal-retroperitoneal sacral colpopexy for the correction of vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  T E Snyder; K E Krantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  EGGS for patient-centered outcomes.

Authors:  Linda Brubaker; Bob Shull
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2005-04-12

5.  Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy: a new approach for correction of posterior compartment defects and perineal descent associated with vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  G W Cundiff; R L Harris; K Coates; V H Low; R C Bump; W A Addison
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  N Kohli; P M Walsh; T W Roat; M M Karram
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 7.  Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  R C Bump; P A Norton
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.844

9.  Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse?

Authors:  Steven E Swift; Susan B Tate; Joyce Nicholas
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Risk of mesh erosion with sacral colpopexy and concurrent hysterectomy.

Authors:  Shawna Brizzolara; Anita Pillai-Allen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Xueli Jia; Cathryn Glazener; Graham Mowatt; David Jenkinson; Cynthia Fraser; Christine Bain; Jennifer Burr
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy: abdominal versus abdominal-vaginal posterior graft attachment.

Authors:  Colleen D McDermott; Jean Park; Colin L Terry; Patrick J Woodman; Douglass S Hale
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Authors:  Mickey Karram; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Risk factors for mesh erosion 3 months following vaginal reconstructive surgery using commercial kits vs. fashioned mesh-augmented vaginal repairs.

Authors:  Peter S Finamore; Karolynn T Echols; Krystal Hunter; Howard B Goldstein; Adam S Holzberg; Babak Vakili
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Maurizio Rosati; Silvia Bramante; Umberto Bracale; Giusto Pignata; Guglielmo Azioni
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2013 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.